Animal Proletarians?

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

"When ancestors in ages beyond recollection killed stags, the descendant still finds pleasure in this legitimate occupation. But my ancestors did not belong to the hunters so much as to the hunted, and the idea of attacking the descendants of those who were our comrades in misery goes against my grain." - Heinrich Heine

Can someone explain why not, because I don't understand.
I don't know how you revolutionaries can not be vegetarians.
The animals are oppressed and treated worse than many human workers.
They have thoughts and emotions like us.
Why does being a different species to us disqualify them from equality?

I imagine I am going to get hit by a barrage of inherited opinions. I would ask that you think carefully about your opinions on this matter (and how you acquired them) before replying.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I have some complicated thoughts on this.

For starters, animals aren't proletarian - they're exploited in a much more direct and brutal way: slavery. I don't mean this to make a false equivalence between various historically specific forms of human slavery and the animal industry, since they're just that, specific. I just think it's important to be somewhat technical in this regard, since the way in which proletarians produce value is different than the role played by animals in the economy.

Secondly, I don't think vegetarianism is an "always and everywhere" thing. As with humans, I think killing specific animals under specific circumstances is totally OK - and fundamentally different on an ethical level than the industrial mass slaughter of animals. I think this distinction is important because it draws a (albeit sometimes blurry) line between the current capitalist use of animals (which I think is basically indefensible on a whole lot of levels, in terms of an ethical relationship to non-human animals, in terms of its effect on proletarians in the industry, ecologically, and so on), and, for example, hunting in the context of non-capitalist social relations. In other words, it's one thing for me to be like, "I'm a white kid in the city, and I'm a vegan" and another for me to go and be like, "Yo, Inuit, why you such brutal seal-murderers?" (not OK, and deeply implicitly racist).

[Hrafn]

I have found it increasingly hard to eat meat coming from animals like cow, sheep, pig, etc., but that's mainly because I grew up on a farm and saw with my own eyes how emotive they can be. Chicken I don't eat, silly me, due to a minor bird phobia, haha. Animals that aren't, hm, large, highly evolved mammals, I have very few problems with consuming. I guess I'm a huge speciesist?

[The Jay]

What exactly do you define a person as?

[Leonid Brozhnev]

Would you equate somebody killing a rodent to the same level of severity as somebody killing a human? What if somebody ate a human, just as bad as eating a chicken? What about a Lion killing a Gazelle? I could go on, but I personally don't view treating animals as equals realistic, in my opinion it enters the same realm of absurdity as primitivism. Of course, that doesn't mean we can't help alleviate the suffering of animals, stop aggressive factory farming, cut our meat consumption, but you don't need to treat animals as equals to do those things. I can be a revolutionary and not a vegetarian since eating meat doesn't effect my ability to throw a Molotov.

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

Would you equate somebody killing a rodent to the same level of severity as somebody killing a human? What if somebody ate a human, just as bad as eating a chicken? What about a Lion killing a Gazelle? I could go on, but I personally don't view treating animals as equals realistic, in my opinion it enters the same realm of absurdity as primitivism. Of course, that doesn't mean we can't help alleviate the suffering of animals, stop aggressive factory farming, cut our meat consumption, but you don't need to treat animals as equals to do those things. I can be a revolutionary and not a vegetarian since eating meat doesn't effect my ability to throw a Molotov.

Sure.

Killing a rodent is not the same as killing a human.
But also killing a rodent isn't the same as killing a dog.
Maybe this is because we have a history of friendship with dogs or they do human things/remind us of humans, BUT I think it's because dogs are very emotional and emotive.
It is in this way that I rank animals - by how emotional they are.

So, just for a moment, let us consider this scenario.
An emotionless human (schizophrenic perhaps) versus a pig (one of the most emotional animals). The pig is more emotional - it loves, it cares about others, it has dependants, whereas the human does not have as great a propensity for emotions.

If you had to pick one to die, which would you pick? Human or pig?
(This doesn't prove equality, I will elaborate later)

[reb]

They have thoughts and emotions like us.

That's a vague statment. I've never seen animal write a book on economics or have the feeling of a religious experience.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Would you equate somebody killing a rodent to the same level of severity as somebody killing a human? What if somebody ate a human, just as bad as eating a chicken? What about a Lion killing a Gazelle? I could go on, but I personally don't view treating animals as equals realistic, in my opinion it enters the same realm of absurdity as primitivism. Of course, that doesn't mean we can't help alleviate the suffering of animals, stop aggressive factory farming, cut our meat consumption, but you don't need to treat animals as equals to do those things. I can be a revolutionary and not a vegetarian since eating meat doesn't effect my ability to throw a Molotov.

It always fascinated me how extremely intelligent and thought-through are responses in this forum on all kind of social questions, but how ignorant and simplistic are the responsive on vegetarianism/veganism...

I think the bottom line for any apologist of eating meat is to find a moral difference between an animal and a human being. We all can see that there are differences, but it's not all that clear why any of these differences are morally relevant, like skin colour is an obvious differences between people, but it's obvious that it's of no moral significance.

Take, for instance, a person with a severe intellectual disability and an animal, which under these circumstances would be more intelligent than that human being and try to articulate a moral difference between these two beings that would be of any moral relevance. I would appreciate anybody's input on the question, because I couldn't come up with anything satisfactory myself after some time thinking about the problem.

[tachosomoza]

Is this a joke?

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

There is an overlap, both in intelligence and emotions, between humans and other animals. This makes it a little ridiculous to me to view them as discreet categories. After all, there is a great amount of variation in intelligence and emotions within the human race. Some suggest that humans are not equal because they are not all the same (different talents, some are smart and some stupid, some emotional some blank) - I personally find this silly, of course we are not all the same; but surely we deserve equal rights?

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

That's a vague statment. I've never seen animal write a book on economics or have the feeling of a religious experience.

I've never done either of those things either. Are those your standards for judging sentient life? Just because humans have a fairly effective way of communicating our emotions, it does not mean we have MORE or stronger emotions than animals - who is to say they don't feel love as deep as us, loss as deep as us etc?

Are you going to discriminate on account of intelligence? Do you discriminate between humans on account of genetic, uncontrollable factors (eye colour, skin colour, intelligence) - do you think that it is better to kill a stupid person than a smart person?

Please know, I'm not trying to be antagonistic - I think this is an important topic worth discussing (civilly :) )

[Comrade #138672]

If we ignore the moralism for the moment, we cannot say that animals are part of a revolutionary class, because they do not and cannot belong to a social class.

[Leonid Brozhnev]

It always fascinated me how extremely intelligent and thought-through are responses in this forum on all kind of social questions, but how ignorant and simplistic are the responsive on vegetarianism/veganism...

Because as topics go, it's a tedious one, and something I'd rather see left up to the decision of individuals rather than having long debates about ethics, morality and all kinds of other arbitrary crap. Certainly, it's a position that's going to garner you very little support from the human proletariat.

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

Because as topics go, it's a tedious one, and something I'd rather see left up to the decision of individuals rather than having long debates about ethics, morality and all kinds of other arbitrary crap. Certainly, it's a position that's going to garner you very little support from the human proletariat.

I want to do right by as many sentient beings as possible - I support the proletariat not because it happens to be the class I was born into, but because it is the vast majority, and I don't think it's right that the few should steal from the many.

If you were born into a capitalist family, are you saying you would be a capitalist? We are not just individuals - we are a part of society, and I want to do the fair thing for as large a part of that society as possible.

If I were to just represent my material interests, I have the ability to propel myself into the capitalist class, but I don't think that is fair.

To me, it is more important that we reach an equal society than merely that my interests are fulfilled.

Call it morality, call it arbitrary crap (as you did) - it is far more important than you or I. We must be on the side of equality - the side that best represents the majority, not just the side that best represents us as individuals. Otherwise you are no better than the capitalists.

[synthesis]

I have some complicated thoughts on this.

For starters, animals aren't proletarian - they're exploited in a much more direct and brutal way: slavery. I don't mean this to make a false equivalence between various historically specific forms of human slavery and the animal industry, since they're just that, specific. I just think it's important to be somewhat technical in this regard, since the way in which proletarians produce value is different than the role played by animals in the economy.

Secondly, I don't think vegetarianism is an "always and everywhere" thing. As with humans, I think killing specific animals under specific circumstances is totally OK - and fundamentally different on an ethical level than the industrial mass slaughter of animals. I think this distinction is important because it draws a (albeit sometimes blurry) line between the current capitalist use of animals (which I think is basically indefensible on a whole lot of levels, in terms of an ethical relationship to non-human animals, in terms of its effect on proletarians in the industry, ecologically, and so on), and, for example, hunting in the context of non-capitalist social relations. In other words, it's one thing for me to be like, "I'm a white kid in the city, and I'm a vegan" and another for me to go and be like, "Yo, Inuit, why you such brutal seal-murderers?" (not OK, and deeply implicitly racist).

The bolded part is the one that really sticks with me. When I watch these undercover animal-welfare/rights videos documenting abuses in slaughterhouses, it just strikes me as proletarians taking the frustration of having to do physically dirty, socially disrespected, underpaid and completely dehumanizing labor out on animals. It's literally sadism-via-capital. If people in slaughterhouses got paid generous wages, and it was therefore a job that people actually wanted, there would still be abuse but I guarantee you it would be qualitatively less horrific than what you see now. (I'm not condemning this behavior, but I'm not apologizing for it either. It's just a part of the analysis I feel is left out from a lot of the pro-animal documentation I've seen.)

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

We are not the petit-bourgeoisie. We want nothing more than what is fair. You need a certain amount of morality to determine that.

I don't think the current relationship between humans and the OTHER animals (don't forget that that is what we are - other animals, not better not worse) is unfair. They are oppressed. They are enslaved. They are worked to death. It must be rectified when the time is right (along with the women's struggle, and racism etc.) I'm not saying drop everything, let's do this now; just that this is something we should think about so that when the time right, and we have the power to do so, we will make the FAIR decision.

[Slavic]

Going off what others have said. Animals can never become proletarians since they can not sell their labor because they do not have the mental capabilities to do so. If an animal were to somehow acheive a level of intellence in which it can reason, then I would include such animal into the proletariat. Untill such thing happens, they are nothing more but slaves/tools.

That being said, scaling how we treat animals based on how emotive they are is just plain silly. First, the term is vauge when applying it to the multitude of different animals that exist. Secondly, if there were such a way to categorize and measure how emotive an animal is, it just lends to a decision based on a scale and not an absolute. All animals, hell all organisms can be ranked on an emotive scale and then we are left to drawn the arbitrary line from which to devide animals that we can eat from those we can not.

I take a view that is more social/biological but it is objective. We are humans, we are biologically designed to eat organisms; plant or animal. We must eat to live, thus we eat plant or animal.

[The Jay]

It always fascinated me how extremely intelligent and thought-through are responses in this forum on all kind of social questions, but how ignorant and simplistic are the responsive on vegetarianism/veganism...

I think the bottom line for any apologist of eating meat is to find a moral difference between an animal and a human being. We all can see that there are differences, but it's not all that clear why any of these differences are morally relevant, like skin colour is an obvious differences between people, but it's obvious that it's of no moral significance.

Take, for instance, a person with a severe intellectual disability and an animal, which under these circumstances would be more intelligent than that human being and try to articulate a moral difference between these two beings that would be of any moral relevance. I would appreciate anybody's input on the question, because I couldn't come up with anything satisfactory myself after some time thinking about the problem.


Then you should be able to convince us that your moral indistinction is the preferred moral set-up, right? Please do so.

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

Going off what others have said. Animals can never become proletarians since they can not sell their labor because they do not have the mental capabilities to do so. If an animal were to somehow acheive a level of intellence in which it can reason, then I would include such animal into the proletariat. Untill such thing happens, they are nothing more but slaves/tools.

Slaves should not be represented?

That being said, scaling how we treat animals based on how emotive they are is just plain silly. First, the term is vauge when applying it to the multitude of different animals that exist. Secondly, if there were such a way to categorize and measure how emotive an animal is, it just lends to a decision based on a scale and not an absolute. All animals, hell all organisms can be ranked on an emotive scale and then we are left to drawn the arbitrary line from which to devide animals that we can eat from those we can not.

Scales are wildly inconvenient, and yes it is stupid and arbitrary to pick points on a scale. But if the scale is the most accurate way to depict something then it must be used (regardless of how difficult it makes things for you) - for example sexuality. I believe sexuality a scale - it makes things difficult to explain, there are no easy labels - you are left with making up arbitrary points. But if sexuality is a scale then it's a scale, and even though it seems easier, you aren't doing anyone any favours by simplifying it (wrong).

I take a view that is more social/biological but it is objective. We are humans, we are biologically designed to eat organisms; plant or animal. We must eat to live, thus we eat plant or animal.


It is in our instincts to mate - we stop ourselves from raping other people because it is wrong. They haven't consented, and we think about their feelings.

Why don't we eat people? It's in our instincts to eat things, so why not humans? Taboo - societal expectations - arbitrary rubbish.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Then you should be able to convince us that your moral indistinction is the preferred moral set-up, right? Please do so.

Like with any type of discrimination, I have a very strong feeling that the burden of justification is on the side which discriminates. It's not that one has to justify why, say, black people shouldn't be discriminated as one can merely point to the fact that the colour of the skin has no moral relevance whatsoever, but it's the discriminator who needs to show that it carries moral relevance.

My claim is that there is no morally relevant distinction between humans and animals. To contest that, I think, one has to provide arguments as to why there is any. I feel it's rather straightforward.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Going off what others have said. Animals can never become proletarians since they can not sell their labor because they do not have the mental capabilities to do so. If an animal were to somehow acheive a level of intellence in which it can reason, then I would include such animal into the proletariat. Untill such thing happens, they are nothing more but slaves/tools.


How do you feel about severely intellectually disabled people who can't contribute to the class struggle anyhow? Should we enslave them for the purpose of class struggle or kill them so that they don't create burden on us?

[Slavic]

How do you feel about severely intellectually disabled people who can't contribute to the class struggle anyhow? Should we enslave them for the purpose of class struggle or kill them so that they don't create burden on us?

The burden argument you make is an argument molded in capitalist thought, I would rather follow the Marxist maxim 'To each.. From each..'. Hint, the severely disabled would be under the 'To each'.
@Xena

Ill respond later, I had typed a point by point response but I forgot to login. I am leaving from work soon and I don't feel like typing it again.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

The burden argument you make is an argument molded in capitalist thought, I would rather follow the Marxist maxim 'To each.. From each..'. Hint, the severely disabled would be under the 'To each'.


Molded in capitalist thought? I think you might be misunderstanding Marxist critique of rights/morality. But then again, I might be speaking out of my own ignorance and would appreciate your input in explaining how is "molded in capitalist though".

But before you do so... I just don't get your response. Why can't animals be included in the same "to each.. from each.."? I think that's the contention, right? You are including intellectually disabled there just for the sake of it, just because they are human, regardless that they have no more mental capacity than animals (by how the thought experiment is constructed), regardless that they can't and don't sell their labour etc. So they aren't part of the proletariat by your own standards, hence, they are mere slaves/tools. So I can only ask again - why aren't they mere slaves/tools or are they?

[Slavic]

Molded in capitalist thought? I think you might be misunderstanding Marxist critique of rights/morality. But then again, I might be speaking out of my own ignorance and would appreciate your input in explaining how is "molded in capitalist though".

But before you do so... I just don't get your response. Why can't animals be included in the same "to each.. from each.."? I think that's the contention, right? You are including intellectually disabled there just for the sake of it, just because they are human, regardless that they have no more mental capacity than animals (by how the thought experiment is constructed), regardless that they can't and don't sell their labour etc. So they aren't part of the proletariat by your own standards, hence, they are mere slaves/tools. So I can only ask again - why aren't they mere slaves/tools or are they?

Leaving from work, but will sum up my response into something quick and cheap and maybe expand on it later.

I am a dirty speciest. I value human life exponentially over that of other organisms. That does not mean I approve of torture or the cruel methods invovled in the food industry, but I am all in favor of utilizing animals as a food product.

The line that vegetarians draw between what and why it is ok to eat so-and-so organism will always be arbitrary and not founded on anything concrete.

So as I leave I'll provide my own version of wild and extreme examples that vegetarians make with eating animals and human slavery.

Pharma is slavery of microorganisms; Farming is slavery of cerials; Fisheries are slavery of fish; Ranches are slavery of cattle; Soyent Green is slavery of humans.

Which one of these things is ok and which one is wrong.

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

If we ignore the moralism for the moment, we cannot say that animals are part of a revolutionary class, because they do not and cannot belong to a social class.

'Class' refers to the classification/categorisation of things.
'Social' refers to the relationships of sentient beings to each other.

Neither of these things are exclusive to humans.

'Social class' as a phrase may have since been only used to refer to humans - but this is part of the assumption that I am attempting to challenge.

Upon reflection - as animals cannot command a wage, they cannot be referred to as part of the proletariat. But they do work without receiving the full value of their labour. They are exploited - they are slaves. Why should they not be better represented?

I think it's safe to assume that not ALL of the proletariat will be involved in any potential revolution. So those who would benefit from a revolution, do not themselves have to be revolutionary.

I would also argue (somewhat facetiously) that animals can be revolutionary or at least anti authoritarian - read a little about the Greek riot dogs. Perhaps I just read animal farm too literally...

These Greek riot dogs seem to have been able to identify the police as the aggressors, and have sided with the protestors. I'm not beginning to suggest that these dogs understand why the protestors are protesting, but nevertheless you cannot deny that they are against the instigators of violence. Please recognised the more lighthearted second argument in this post :)

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

Leaving from work, but will sum up my response into something quick and cheap and maybe expand on it later.

I am a dirty speciest. I value human life exponentially over that of other organisms. That does not mean I approve of torture or the cruel methods invovled in the food industry, but I am all in favor of utilizing animals as a food product.

The line that vegetarians draw between what and why it is ok to eat so-and-so organism will always be arbitrary and not founded on anything concrete.

So as I leave I'll provide my own version of wild and extreme examples that vegetarians make with eating animals and human slavery.

Pharma is slavery of microorganisms; Farming is slavery of cerials; Fisheries are slavery of fish; Ranches are slavery of cattle; Soyent Green is slavery of humans.

Which one of these things is ok and which one is wrong.

The concrete discreet difference between animals and plants is Sentience. Emotions.

I don't eat things that had emotions - you contribute to the industry that murders animals (and often treats them badly)
Unfortunately for me, being a vegan would take an unfeasible amount of time and money; I long for the day when it is a more common practice, and there is a wider (and much cheaper) choice for vegans.

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere also that eating meat is around 8 times wore wasteful than not eating meat. It puts a massive strain on our already resource-stretched planet. No planet, no future humans ;)

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Leaving from work, but will sum up my response into something quick and cheap and maybe expand on it later.

I am a dirty speciest. I value human life exponentially over that of other organisms. That does not mean I approve of torture or the cruel methods invovled in the food industry, but I am all in favor of utilizing animals as a food product.

The line that vegetarians draw between what and why it is ok to eat so-and-so organism will always be arbitrary and not founded on anything concrete.

So as I leave I'll provide my own version of wild and extreme examples that vegetarians make with eating animals and human slavery.

Pharma is slavery of microorganisms; Farming is slavery of cerials; Fisheries are slavery of fish; Ranches are slavery of cattle; Soyent Green is slavery of humans.

Which one of these things is ok and which one is wrong.

Well, it sucks if you endorse your spiecisim so openly. It always reminds me of conditions of slavery, i.e. that generally people didn't really give a damn about it as well. I guess it was Richard Dawkins that said that's it's true there is no moral distinction between animals and humans, but he still wasn't vegetarian, because, well, it's just easier to go with the flow, like under slavery... Anyway.


For me the line is drawn with the fishery.

Look, I concede, the line is arbitrary. Like pretty much with everything else. Like with what we consider children/teenagers/adults. Like with what we consider torture etc. All these lines are arbitrary. But regardless of that, my appeal is not to some bourgeois morality or whatnot, but to mere consistence in application of a principle. In other words, if you concede that generally cannibalism is wrong, you ought to have some morally relevant distinctions that would justify eating animal flesh. As simple as that.

In the absence of such distinctions, you are being a spiecisits just for the sake of, just because you are born in such society, just because it makes your life easier. With which, as far as I can tell, you have absolutely no problem. Well, quite frankly neither do I - long ago I started noticing the futility of any individualist morality. But my problem in this case is not that much with morals, but with consistency. I find it harder to live without consistency than without meat/milk. Then again, you can recognize the lack of consistency and not give a damn. Ah, fuck this, it's not going anywhere... Let's talk about revolution better...

[The Jay]

Like with any type of discrimination, I have a very strong feeling that the burden of justification is on the side which discriminates. It's not that one has to justify why, say, black people shouldn't be discriminated as one can merely point to the fact that the colour of the skin has no moral relevance whatsoever, but it's the discriminator who needs to show that it carries moral relevance.

My claim is that there is no morally relevant distinction between humans and animals. To contest that, I think, one has to provide arguments as to why there is any. I feel it's rather straightforward.

First of all, when blacks were discriminated against (well, more discriminated against) they did put forth arguments as to their personhood. Your assertion that it is the oppressor that must explain is pretty stupid considering that most oppressors don't think that they're even doing anything. It is the person that is making the claim that there's something wrong to make it otherwise nobody would even know that the thing is that, wrong.

So, go ahead and make you argument. You are the one asserting an argument. You started the thread.

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

First of all, when blacks were discriminated against (well, more discriminated against) they did put forth arguments as to their personhood. Your assertion that it is the oppressor that must explain is pretty stupid considering that most oppressors don't think that they're even doing anything. It is the person that is making the claim that there's something wrong to make it otherwise nobody would even know that the thing is that, wrong.

So, go ahead and make you argument. You are the one asserting an argument. You started the thread.

No, we are not asserting an argument. We are merely undermining the current argument. 'The blacks' were attesting to the fact that the previous argument was wrong.

The capitalists have imposed this rule on us. We ask that they justify their claims.

The proof that two spheres are the same, is that there are no differences - the absence of proof that there are differences. The only thing that can be proved is that there ARE differences. The current school of thought (not the one that has always existed) is that there are differences - prove it. The burden of proof is firmly on your shoulders.

How are humans different from animals as the current school of thought suggests?
Attempt to prove that they are discreet groups.
We need a clear interpretation of your argument in order to refute your claims.

[The Jay]

Are you in favor of abortion?

[Slavic]

Well, it sucks if you endorse your spiecisim so openly. It always reminds me of conditions of slavery, i.e. that generally people didn't really give a damn about it as well. I guess it was Richard Dawkins that said that's it's true there is no moral distinction between animals and humans, but he still wasn't vegetarian, because, well, it's just easier to go with the flow, like under slavery... Anyway.


For me the line is drawn with the fishery.

Look, I concede, the line is arbitrary. Like pretty much with everything else. Like with what we consider children/teenagers/adults. Like with what we consider torture etc. All these lines are arbitrary. But regardless of that, my appeal is not to some bourgeois morality or whatnot, but to mere consistence in application of a principle. In other words, if you concede that generally cannibalism is wrong, you ought to have some morally relevant distinctions that would justify eating animal flesh. As simple as that.

In the absence of such distinctions, you are being a spiecisits just for the sake of, just because you are born in such society, just because it makes your life easier. With which, as far as I can tell, you have absolutely no problem. Well, quite frankly neither do I - long ago I started noticing the futility of any individualist morality. But my problem in this case is not that much with morals, but with consistency. I find it harder to live without consistency than without meat/milk. Then again, you can recognize the lack of consistency and not give a damn. Ah, fuck this, it's not going anywhere... Let's talk about revolution better...

Yea I'm not trying to knock vegetarianism, I just had qualms with the method in which Xena was classifying animals.

I do agree with your reasoning of application of principle. You can base your principle off of a arbitrary category system such as emotions, that is fine and dandy, but I draw the line when this principle is transformed into a morale system and used to attack my own principles. Again you are not the transgressor in this sense, but a lot of vegetarians take on their diet from a moralist stance and not a matter of principle.

As to the speciest thing; my principle follows that of biology and the food chain. I eat animals and plants lower than me on the food chain because I am an omnivour. I do not eat other humans unless in desperation because they are on the same level on this food chain. It is very basic, but that is my rational for why I am not a vegetarian and I keep it consistent. I do not gorge myself of meats, but I do occasionaly like a meal where the meat is the center piece.

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

Are you in favor of abortion?

I am pro-choice. I know that the legal date is fairly arbitrary - but that is what happens when you try to impose concrete statements and standards onto a fluid world of spectrums. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do our best despite the difficulties. I'm fairly certain aborted foetuses are not sentient - they do have the potential to become sentient given the right conditions - but so does every egg that is lost to periods, and I do not mourn them.

[Comrade #138672]

'Class' refers to the classification/categorisation of things.
'Social' refers to the relationships of sentient beings to each other.

Neither of these things are exclusive to humans.Then you are using both words in a different sense than me. Here class does not mean something as general as "classification". Social class specifically refers to the relationship between a social person, i.e. human being, and the means of production.


'Social class' as a phrase may have since been only used to refer to humans - but this is part of the assumption that I am attempting to challenge.Alright, but this is going to be extremely difficult.


Upon reflection - as animals cannot command a wage, they cannot be referred to as part of the proletariat. But they do work without receiving the full value of their labour. They are exploited - they are slaves. Why should they not be better represented?In the context of capital, animals are more similar to machines than to people. I know this sounds rather harsh, but objectively this seems to be closer to the truth than asserting that animals should belong to a "social class" because they are "sentient".

I do, however, believe that animal emancipation is closely linked with human emancipation, but this does not mean that animals are active agents in the struggle for emancipation. As much as I love animals, I do not think that they are generally capable of this.


I think it's safe to assume that not ALL of the proletariat will be involved in any potential revolution. So those who would benefit from a revolution, do not themselves have to be revolutionary.Yeah, I guess.


I would also argue (somewhat facetiously) that animals can be revolutionary or at least anti authoritarian - read a little about the Greek riot dogs. Perhaps I just read animal farm too literally...The Greek riot dogs? Well, animals are pretty much powerless against the ruling class and everything under the control of the ruling class, such as the police, the army, etc. Only people can change society. Only proletarians can change society under capitalism. Precisely because we want to eliminate animal cruelty, we need to acknowledge this fact.


These Greek riot dogs seem to have been able to identify the police as the aggressors, and have sided with the protestors. I'm not beginning to suggest that these dogs understand why the protestors are protesting, but nevertheless you cannot deny that they are against the instigators of violence. Please recognised the more lighthearted second argument in this post :)Alright, that is pretty cool, but does this mean that Greek riot dogs are a revolutionary class?

[The Jay]

I don't think that many animals are sentient enough. That is my opinion and why I don't have a problem eating a cow. I won't eat some animals, like gorillas, chimps, whales, ect. but a chicken? I'll eat the hell out of a chicken.

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

Yea I'm not trying to knock vegetarianism, I just had qualms with the method in which Xena was classifying animals.

I do agree with your reasoning of application of principle. You can base your principle off of a arbitrary category system such as emotions, that is fine and dandy, but I draw the line when this principle is transformed into a morale system and used to attack my own principles. Again you are not the transgressor in this sense, but a lot of vegetarians take on their diet from a moralist stance and not a matter of principle.

As to the speciest thing; my principle follows that of biology and the food chain. I eat animals and plants lower than me on the food chain because I am an omnivour. I do not eat other humans unless in desperation because they are on the same level on this food chain. It is very basic, but that is my rational for why I am not a vegetarian and I keep it consistent. I do not gorge myself of meats, but I do occasionaly like a meal where the meat is the center piece.

My principles are based on my morals - my axioms. You are using the word 'moralistic' as if it is a dirty word that disqualifies any position based on ethics.

I'm glad you said that you would eat a human in desperation - this shows consistency for which I commend you, and a certain freedom from the taboos that dominate many peoples' opinions.

'My principle follows that of biology' - this amuses me as it's often used as a reason why humans are different to animals... Ie. "we are not slaves to our biology"

I would argue that your principles on this matter are far more arbitrary than mine as they are that of the default position that you were taught (by the same people who think capitalism is a jolly good system for everyone no less)

[Comrade #138672]

I don't think that many animals are sentient enough. That is my opinion and why I don't have a problem eating a cow. I won't eat some animals, like gorillas, chimps, whales, ect. but a chicken? I'll eat the hell out of a chicken.Umm... What is "sentient enough"? Surely (many) animals do experience pain, pleasure, etc.

[The Jay]

Umm... What is "sentient enough"? Surely (many) animals do experience pain, pleasure, etc.

Pleasure and pain are not what I use. I use language and other high level function. It is an arbitrary distinction but it is my opinion as I have mentioned. I'm not stopping you from being a vegetarian.

[Sinister Intents]

That's a vague statment. I've never seen animal write a book on economics or have the feeling of a religious experience.

They don't really have the capabilities to do any of these things.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

As to the speciest thing; my principle follows that of biology and the food chain. I eat animals and plants lower than me on the food chain because I am an omnivour. I do not eat other humans unless in desperation because they are on the same level on this food chain. It is very basic, but that is my rational for why I am not a vegetarian and I keep it consistent. I do not gorge myself of meats, but I do occasionaly like a meal where the meat is the center piece.

I am not sure about this 'scientific' explanation. What does it mean to be above in the food chain? I mean, is it okay to beat a shit out of indigenous people, because we can? I mean, surely we are more progressed technologically, we can just go and beat a shit out of them with our machine guns or whatnot, does it make us above them in the food chain? What if someone proved scientifically that eating human flesh is pretty damn healthy and with certain spices taste pretty awesome, would we then be above them in the food chain?

This food chain thingy is again just some arbitrary standard, which is, as I said before, is my major contention on the topic.

[Comrade #138672]

Pleasure and pain are not what I use. I use language and other high level function. It is an arbitrary distinction but it is my opinion as I have mentioned. I'm not stopping you from being a vegetarian.I know that it is your opinion. You can believe whatever you want. But, what I would like to know is: would you consider a machine, capable of emulating those high-level functions, "sentient", as opposed to a chicken, for example?

[Slavic]

My principles are based on my morals - my axioms. You are using the word 'moralistic' as if it is a dirty word that disqualifies any position based on ethics.

Ultimately morals are relative and axioms are akin to faith based truths. What is morally good for one individual can be morally evil to another and thus there can be no established truth. That is why I shy away and try my best to development my principles on non-ethical grounds. That being said, I don't think I could live every second of my life as a nihilist, so when I have to make a moral decisions I usually utilize a utilitarian approach.


'My principle follows that of biology' - this amuses me as it's often used as a reason why humans are different to animals... Ie. "we are not slaves to our biology"

I actually follow that we indeed slaves to our biology or may I say chemistry.


I would argue that your principles on this matter are far more arbitrary than mine as they are that of the default position that you were taught (by the same people who think capitalism is a jolly good system for everyone no less)

The "default position" is the system of the food chain, a system of social-biological interaction that has dominated organisms since the dawn of... organisms. If I am wrong because I follow one of the most basic of organism interaction, then I am dead wrong.

Also, seriously, you are knocking down the food chain because it has been taught by people who think capitalism is good??? Well fuck I guess I should just toss all science out the window. No physics, no math, no chemistry, no medicine, no science is sound unless its creator hates Capitalism. That is a ridiculous statement.

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

Ultimately morals are relative and axioms are akin to faith based truths. What is morally good for one individual can be morally evil to another and thus there can be no established truth. That is why I shy away and try my best to development my principles on non-ethical grounds. That being said, I don't think I could live every second of my life as a nihilist, so when I have to make a moral decisions I usually utilize a utilitarian approach.

I actually follow that we indeed slaves to our biology or may I say chemistry.

The "default position" is the system of the food chain, a system of social-biological interaction that has dominated organisms since the dawn of... organisms. If I am wrong because I follow one of the most basic of organism interaction, then I am dead wrong.

Also, seriously, you are knocking down the food chain because it has been taught by people who think capitalism is good??? Well fuck I guess I should just toss all science out the window. No physics, no math, no chemistry, no medicine, no science is sound unless its creator hates Capitalism. That is a ridiculous statement.

I'm just knocking the basing your morals on the food chain, as if to say - ah well this is science; can't be helped...

Presumably this isn't also your position on mating - 'I'm programmed to mate, so I'm going to force myself on people and try to further my genes'

There's no such thing as non-ethical grounds. The furthest back you can go is 'material conditions' and it is a ethical matter of opinion that to survive is better than to die. You cannot get away from that. Your arguments are flawed on these grounds.

I brought up the capitalist point because a common supporting 'argument' for capitalism is "well this is the way things are, it can't be changed OR ...so it must be right" (which sounds a lot like the argument you are trying to put forward)

Edit*

Now I think about it you have provided the perfect example of moralism. That the food chain is accepted as scientific fact means nothing more than it is scientific fact. That 1 + 1 = 2 means nothing more than that - it doesn't mean it's a good thing, it doesn't mean it's a bad thing, it just means it's true.

If you follow the food chain and other biological impulses to survive, you may as well go and join the capitalists, and then betray them, in the revolution - this is the best way to achieve your biological instincts and aims.

[Slavic]

I am not sure about this 'scientific' explanation. What does it mean to be above in the food chain? I mean, is it okay to beat a shit out of indigenous people, because we can? I mean, surely we are more progressed technologically, we can just go and beat a shit out of them with our machine guns or whatnot, does it make us above them in the food chain? What if someone proved scientifically that eating human flesh is pretty damn healthy and with certain spices taste pretty awesome, would we then be above them in the food chain?

This food chain thingy is again just some arbitrary standard, which is, as I said before, is my major contention on the topic.

Again we are talking about apples and oranges. There is no logic that follows my justification for eating a pig is the same as murdering an indigenous person.

If human flesh were to be pretty damn healthy, the I'd suspect that the evolution and social development of humans may have been drastically different, but such a thing is not true.

I made mention to the food chain thinger in my last post. There is no model that is set in stone that says what we can and cannot eat, hence any model we come up with will have some level of arbitrariness. I find the food chain though to be the best model to explain why some organisms eat other organisms. It demonstrates the flow of nutrients and chemicals through out the environment and how all organisms benefit through this system.

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

Again we are talking about apples and oranges. There is no logic that follows my justification for eating a pig is the same as murdering an indigenous person.

If human flesh were to be pretty damn healthy, the I'd suspect that the evolution and social development of humans may have been drastically different, but such a thing is not true.

I made mention to the food chain thinger in my last post. There is no model that is set in stone that says what we can and cannot eat, hence any model we come up with will have some level of arbitrariness. I find the food chain though to be the best model to explain why some organisms eat other organisms. It demonstrates the flow of nutrients and chemicals through out the environment and how all organisms benefit through this system.

It explains why it happens - it doesn't say that it SHOULD happen. If you are happy not to impose any of your morals on the world then why are you a revolutionary?

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Again we are talking about apples and oranges. There is no logic that follows my justification for eating a pig is the same as murdering an indigenous person.

If human flesh were to be pretty damn healthy, the I'd suspect that the evolution and social development of humans may have been drastically different, but such a thing is not true.

I made mention to the food chain thinger in my last post. There is no model that is set in stone that says what we can and cannot eat, hence any model we come up with will have some level of arbitrariness. I find the food chain though to be the best model to explain why some organisms eat other organisms. It demonstrates the flow of nutrients and chemicals through out the environment and how all organisms benefit through this system.

Oh stop it, for one the pigs and chickens raised for human consumption don't benefit from this system of flow of nutrients.

Look, I am quite confident in saying that there are many things that we might be following due to biological necessity or whatnot, but we don't. And we don't because we have such thing as reason, which leads us to develop the systems of what we ought to do and what we ought not do. Based on that alone your argument about some biological/evolutionary determinism is seriously undermined.

It's late where I live, but I am quite sure that you can come up with some examples on your own. Not sure about this one, but what about patriarchy? There was this evolutionary development in history, which led to what we have now. We observe something similar in some species as well. Does it mean we should stick with it? Of course not, because we don't find it necessary, even though, it was evolution that brought us here. Like, you know, with eating meat. I am quite sure someone can come up with a better example, but I hope you get my point.

[Slavic]

I'm just knocking the basing your morals on the food chain, as if to say - ah well this is science; can't be helped...

Well yea, if it is scientifically proven then it can't be helped.


Presumably this isn't also your position on mating - 'I'm programmed to mate, so I'm going to force myself on people and try to further my genes'

Again another mating and rape analogy. Since when did mating and rape become synonymous. Mating is an act of courtship which leads to sex and then reproduction. Rape is more so power and control then sexual gratification.


There's no such thing as non-ethical grounds. The furthest back you can go is 'material conditions' and it is a ethical matter of opinion that to survive is better than to die. You cannot get away from that. Your arguments are flawed on these grounds.

The thing is, there is no such thing as an objectionably true moral. Even your survive/die example is relative since it can be argued that in certain cases it is better to die then to survive. Since there is no true moral ground, then the best thing we can do is subscribe to a principle while acknowledging that it has a level of arbitrariness to it, hence my reliance on empirical studies.

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

Well yea, if it is scientifically proven then it can't be helped.

How come I'm a vegetarian then? I don't follow the the food chain because I find it morally disgusting.


Again another mating and rape analogy. Since when did mating and rape become synonymous. Mating is an act of courtship which leads to sex and then reproduction. Rape is more so power and control then sexual gratification.

Often with animals you will find that because of their biological impulse to pass on their genes, they will rape another animal in order to pass on their genes. Humans also have an impulse to pass on genes - this is accepted biological fact - this doesn't mean that you SHOULD rape people - that decision is down to your morals.


The thing is, there is no such thing as an objectionably true moral. Even your survive/die example is relative since it can be argued that in certain cases it is better to die then to survive. Since there is no true moral ground, then the best thing we can do is subscribe to a principle while acknowledging that it has a level of arbitrariness to it, hence my reliance on empirical studies.

That's exactly what I'm saying. EVERY decision is subjective. By saying 'I'm following biology' you are assuming that biology is MORALLY right. Look up 'moralism' you are using it gratuitously.

[Slavic]

Oh stop it, for one the pigs and chickens raised for human consumption don't benefit from this system of flow of nutrients.

I stated earlier in the thread that I am against the way animals are currently treated in the food industry. The pigs are feed, and the pigs feed us. If the pigs are feed in the open range, then the pigs feed us. If the pigs are feed in the open range, and we don't eat the pig, then some other larger animal will eat the pigs. Either way, the pig eats and lives, and some other organism eats the pig and lives.

I am all in favor of humane treatment of animals that we use as a food source, but I am not going to deny that pigs are a prey animal to larger predator animals.


It's late where I live, but I am quite sure that you can come up with some examples on your own. Not sure about this one, but what about patriarchy? There was this evolutionary development in history, which led to what we have now. We observe something similar in some species as well. Does it mean we should stick with it? Of course not, because we don't find it necessary, even though, it was evolution that brought us here. Like, you know, with eating meat. I am quite sure someone can come up with a better example, but I hope you get my point.

Patriarchy is a social development, not a biological evolution. Eating meat is a biological evolution not a social development. The social sphere can change relatively quickly; the biological sphere is not as fast.

[Kill all the fetuses!]

Patriarchy is a social development, not a biological evolution. Eating meat is a biological evolution not a social development. The social sphere can change relatively quickly; the biological sphere is not as fast.

You don't need meat to survive. It's not biological in any way, it's exactly the point that it is more of a social development - you eat that because it's tasty, not because it's necessary for your survival. But like I said - with a genuine attempt you can come up with a better example where we don't act upon our biological impulses, but restrain them due to our ability to reason and distinguish between right and wrong. Or I might do that tomorrow.

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

Moralistic fallacy– inferring factual conclusions from purely evaluative premises in violation of fact–value distinction. For instance, inferring is from ought is an instance of moralistic fallacy. Moralistic fallacy is the inverse of naturalistic fallacy defined below.

Naturalistic fallacy – inferring evaluative conclusions from purely factual premises in violation of fact–value distinction. For instance, inferring ought from is (sometimes referred to as the is-ought fallacy) is an instance of naturalistic fallacy. Also naturalistic fallacy in a stricter sense as defined in the section "Conditional or questionable fallacies" below is an instance of naturalistic fallacy. Naturalistic fallacy is the inverse of moralistic fallacy.

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

"Some people use the phrase "naturalistic fallacy" or "appeal to nature" to characterize inferences of the form "This behaviour is natural; therefore, this behaviour is morally acceptable" or "This property is unnatural; therefore, this property is undesireable." Such inferences are common in discussions of homosexuality, environmentalism and veganism.
The naturalistic fallacy is the idea that what is found in nature is good. It was the basis for Social Darwinism, the belief that helping the poor and sick would get in the way of evolution, which depends on the survival of the fittest. Today, biologists denounce the Naturalistic Fallacy because they want to describe the natural world honestly, without people deriving morals about how we ought to behave (as in: If birds and beasts engage in adultery, infanticide, cannibalism, it must be OK). The moralistic fallacy is that what is good is found in nature. It lies behind the bad science in nature-documentary voiceovers: lions are mercy-killers of the weak and sick, mice feel no pain when cats eat them, dung beetles recycle dung to benefit the ecosystem and so on. It also lies behind the romantic belief that humans cannot harbor desires to kill, rape, lie, or steal because that would be too depressing or reactionary."

[Slavic]

You don't need meat to survive. It's not biological in any way, it's exactly the point that it is more of a social development - you eat that because it's tasty, not because it's necessary for your survival. But like I said - with a genuine attempt you can come up with a better example where we don't act upon our biological impulses, but restrain them due to our ability to reason and distinguish between right and wrong. Or I might do that tomorrow.

I'm sorry, I think a lot of confusion with my reasoning stems from my belief that there is no free will. I follow the line of thought that, thought is entirely chemical in nature and results from reaction to external stimuli. This being said, we don't 'control' how we shape our thoughts, our thoughts are shaped by stimuli.

When ever I examine thought processes I tend to use that line of thinking. From this I extract that you can never use "reason to distinguish between right and wrong". Our "reasoning" is just the summation of a stimulus chain of causes and effects stretching toward infinity. Our chemical reactions are just the result of all chemical reactions that have ever occurred.

This being said, that I why I believe that you can never justify something as being objectively right or wrong. I do understand though that I am a human, with a human mind that has limitations, and to live everyday under the assumption that we have no free will would drive me insane. So I cop out and follow utilitarian principles and empiricism.

[The Jay]

Define your use of 'emulate'.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I just want to put this out there . . .

The "Do you think killing an animal is the same as killing a human you misanthropic vegan psychopath?!" thing is such utter bullshit, because it deals with abstractions. Neither "a human" nor "an animal" has an intrinsic value as such - they have to be understood in their specificities.

So, for example, I'd argue that it's more just to kill and eat, say, a racist cop than it is to kill and eat my roommate's (very nice) dog. It's not about the "species" - it's about a particular social relation. It's for this reason that mass industrial animal slaughter is reprehensible. It's not that there's anything wrong with "killing animals" (including humans!) on a particular basis. Mass industrialized profit for slaughter should, I would hope, especially among communists, be easy enough to differentiate.

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

I just want to put this out there . . .

The "Do you think killing an animal is the same as killing a human you misanthropic vegan psychopath?!" thing is such utter bullshit, because it deals with abstractions. Neither "a human" nor "an animal" has an intrinsic value as such - they have to be understood in their specificities.

So, for example, I'd argue that it's more just to kill and eat, say, a racist cop than it is to kill and eat my roommate's (very nice) dog. It's not about the "species" - it's about a particular social relation. It's for this reason that mass industrial animal slaughter is reprehensible. It's not that there's anything wrong with "killing animals" (including humans!) on a particular basis. Mass industrialized profit for slaughter should, I would hope, especially among communists, be easy enough to differentiate.

I totally agree with you. It's not an argument that makes you very popular though :) I love dogs - most dogs are better than people (kinder, more loving, so forgiving) they just have so much love to give, and they don't discriminate in who they give it too. If only more people were like dogs...

Most animals are innocent, you can't really say the same for humans though. I will post a lengthy post after this discussing in more detail...

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

Life is not sacred. To end an existence is not necessarily cruel, or wrong in itself. The only manner in which it could be wrong were if the wrong reasons outweighed the right; if the misery caused to others by the loss outweighed the misery avoided to others by the killing.

An existence is measured by the emotion. Humans are not special. Their existence does not have a discrete superiority to the existences of other animals. For the most part they have a greater consciousness than that of other animals. But it is not just this that must be taken into account when evaluating an existence - it is also the impact on the existences of others. It is in this way that one could prefer mouse (even though its impact may be far less significant) to continue its existence than a human with a family who makes many others miserable.

It should be noted however that everything is a product of its surroundings, and may have the potential to change, and that potential may even be likely to be fulfilled. It is in this way that the human's existence could be preferred to the existence of the mouse. The mouse does not have the potential to bring much more happiness into the world, whereas a human - being more conscious and more complex has the potential to bring an enormous amount of happiness to the world.

If the human were to submit to dogma (for example in 1984) and arrest their progress and murder their own potential for good, then they revert to their position below the mouse, except far lower. They are not only someone who is mean to others but someone who killed a potentially wonderful human being - their own potential self. There are many humans whose existences I would happily end before that of the mouse.

[synthesis]

I totally agree with you. It's not an argument that makes you very popular though :) I love dogs - most dogs are better than people (kinder, more loving, so forgiving) they just have so much love to give, and they don't discriminate in who they give it too. If only more people were like dogs...

Dogs that were raised with kindness, love and forgiveness will strike you this way. This kind of stuff - and I see it a lot - just seems like the flip side of the other side's argument, resting on just as faulty an analysis of some sort of intrinsic "nature."

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

Dogs that were raised with kindness, love and forgiveness will strike you this way. This kind of stuff - and I see it a lot - just seems like the flip side of the other side's argument, resting on just as faulty an analysis of some sort of intrinsic "nature."

Sure. I am fully aware of the role that conditioning plays in these matters. The thing that strikes me though is when you compare dogs to cats - they are often treated the same way, and in the same household - yet clearly the dogs are just more loving and compassionate than cats.

And don't forget that when it comes to 'intrinsic nature' (which I think is largely bullshit) dogs were eugenically bred for these characteristics (or at least a propensity for these characteristics)